Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Big Oil Discovery For US  
User currently offlineJasond From Australia, joined Jul 2009, 23 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2819 times:

I just caught a story on local TV news of a very large oil discovery in the Gulf of Mexico. Figures quoted:

15 Billion Barrel reserve;
Boost US reserves by 50%

Anyone confirm story and if true what will be the impact on fuel prices in the short, medium and longer term?

38 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDeltaGator From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 6341 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2744 times:

Move to NonAv.

Quoting Jasond (Thread starter):
Anyone confirm story and if true what will be the impact on fuel prices in the short, medium and longer term?

Heard this on the news while transiting through Singapore today. As for impact on fuel prices...you'll see nothing short or even medium term. It will take years to build up infrastructure to get the oil to the shore and still doesn't change the fact we need more refineries here in the States.



"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
User currently offlineBlazingCessna From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 113 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2719 times:

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 1):
still doesn't change the fact we need more refineries here in the States.

Thank the EPA for closing all of them. They put up the damned unattainable standards, so no one cuts the cheese anymore. Of cousre these are the same idiots that actually thing that a Peterbilt is gonna get 15mpg by 2010.

Someone needs to snap those screwballs back to reality.

In aviation related it wont help the price of 100LL or JET A anytime soon. HEll I hope it will, I pay 5.15 a gallon for 100LL!  banghead 

[Edited 2006-09-06 13:12:33]


Flown on:722, 731, 732, 742, 752, 763, DC8, DC9, DC10, A300, A319, A320, A330, PIC on C172, PA28R, D55, A36, DC3
User currently offlineNosedive From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2651 times:

Quoting BlazingCessna (Reply 2):
Someone needs to snap those screwballs back to reality.

Or someone needs to actually try to meet a standard without bitching about it  sarcastic 


User currently offlineBlazingCessna From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 113 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2627 times:

Those arbitrary standards cant be met with current technology. Most scientists and engineeers say it will be at least 10 years before they can be met. Most think about 15-20 years. Some will never be met, it just cant be done. That is the problem my friend. Those morons in Washington think they can write it down and it happens. It just don't work that way.  irked 


Flown on:722, 731, 732, 742, 752, 763, DC8, DC9, DC10, A300, A319, A320, A330, PIC on C172, PA28R, D55, A36, DC3
User currently offlineFalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6109 posts, RR: 29
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2591 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Nosedive (Reply 3):
Or someone needs to actually try to meet a standard without bitching about it

Standards could probably be met, but people are not going to want to pay the higher prices that it will cost to build it. From a technicians view it is a lot easier to talk about building something more fuel efficient than to actually build one. There are huge amounts of cost in building plants, reworking machines, training workers, training techs on the repair end, research. It is easy top make standards it is difficult to implement them on a strict time schedule. When schedules are strict you get sloppy engineering and poor build quality to meet deadlines. Great example: 1981 Cadillac with the V-8-6-4 worked great in theory, was a junk pile. It saved gas, but the technology wasn't perfect. 20 years later Chrysler is using the same idea on V-8s and it works great. Just give engineers time and they will perfect things.

Quoting BlazingCessna (Reply 4):
Those morons in Washington think they can write it down and it happens. It just don't work that way.

I have a classic film strip, "The Metric Olyimpics",that says the USA will go metric on 1-1-1975. That didn't happen.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2413 times:

Quoting Jasond (Thread starter):
15 Billion Barrel reserve;
Boost US reserves by 50%

Lot's of stories on this in the media today. This doesn't include potential reserves off Florida and the West Coast. I remember reading that these could be potentially 80 billion bbl.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineContnlEliteCMH From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1460 posts, RR: 44
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2326 times:

Quoting BlazingCessna (Reply 2):
Thank the EPA for closing all of them. They put up the damned unattainable standards, so no one cuts the cheese anymore. Of cousre these are the same idiots that actually thing that a Peterbilt is gonna get 15mpg by 2010.

Yeah, that one makes me laugh. Do I think it's possible? Yes, but not by 2010, and probably not by 2020. You'd need to completely change the way the engines are designed and built (even higher compression ratios, even more turbo boost), the vehicle is geared, and you'd have to add massive complexity by using some sort of power load leveler, like a hybrid scheme.

Even if you did all this, and managed to substantially reduce the CD of a tractor WITH a trailer, I'm not sure you could get to 15 MPG. Everybody needs to understand that many of the people who set these policies have never done a shred of practical work in their life. They got a Ph. D. in "something policy" and went straight to work for government. They *think* they know what's happening in the real world, but they haven't a clue.

I put people who glibly say, "Maybe you should work harder to meet the standard" in the same bucket. Some of them know what the real world does and still maintain their purist's stance; most of them just have no idea.

But hey, if we covered an airliner in solar cells, it would get a lot more efficient, right?  Yeah sure



Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
User currently offlineStarrion From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1126 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2231 times:

Funny how that now oil is worth $70 a barrel, the oil companies are going out and finding it again. I can't imagine why back when it was in the $20's they didn't want to bother with exploration.

Meanwhile we had to tolerate endless threads on "Peak oil here!" and how in the future we would be flying airliners on vegetable oil.

I bet we will have more major finds over the next couple of years as well. Now that there is big money to be made, a lot of companies are going to want to jump on the bandwagon.

Airliners will stil be using the same fuels 30 years from now. It was just a matter of making the searching profitable.



Knowledge Replaces Fear
User currently offlineDelta777jet From Germany, joined Jun 2000, 1274 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2050 times:

I believe the discovery has something to do to decrease the price of oil in short to medium term and to bring relaxation into the market with an eye on the future of the Iran conflict. With this the US government can avoid the thread from Iran instantly and may execute some actions ?!?


Fly easyJet
User currently offlineUPS Pilot From United States of America, joined May 1999, 871 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2032 times:

http://pressroom.ups.com/pressreleases/current/0,1088,4694,00.html

Your fuel effcient Peterbilt might be here sooner than you think.


User currently offlineCharlienorth From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 1128 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2015 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 6):
Lot's of stories on this in the media today. This doesn't include potential reserves off Florida and the West Coast. I remember reading that these could be potentially 80 billion bbl.

I'm sure this is true,the sad thing about is some envirofreak will probably file a lawsuit to prevent drilling and than whine about the price of gas!


User currently offlineContnlEliteCMH From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1460 posts, RR: 44
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1969 times:

Quoting UPS Pilot (Reply 10):
Your fuel effcient Peterbilt might be here sooner than you think.

This is an example of the complexity I spoke of earlier. This new vehicle is considerably more complex than the box truck it replaces. However, urban use is ideal for such technology due to the common starts and stops. Delivery trucks, mail service, and buses could really benefit from this -- assuming that the organizations using the vehicles can acquire maintenance skills AND the fuel savings make sense (which I believe will continue to happen).

I'm particularly fascinated by the hydraulic drive. Cooooooool stuff.

Over-the-road is an entirely different animal. OTR cycle highs and lows are much smaller in amplitude. It's here that I'm skeptical such gains in fuel economy can be realized. I need to look up DOT figures for percentage of fuel and/or miles consumed by OTR vs. urban.



Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1921 times:

Quoting Starrion (Reply 8):
Funny how that now oil is worth $70 a barrel, the oil companies are going out and finding it again. I can't imagine why back when it was in the $20's they didn't want to bother with exploration.

Another example of the American education system at its best.  Wink

Maybe it wasn't discovered before now because oil from the field at issue wasn't economically recoverable at 20 dollars a barrel.

Why should an oil company expend resources to look for oil where it cannot be economically recovered?

[Edited 2006-09-06 22:46:08]

User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1858 times:

Heard this on line recently, but correct me if I'm wrong. Citgo is one of the "members" of the group of this find. Is it not true that Citgo is owned by Venezuela? If so, look for the Chevez soap opera to continue.....

User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26534 posts, RR: 75
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1855 times:

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 1):
and still doesn't change the fact we need more refineries here in the States.

Not only have oil companies refused to build more refineries that have been permitted for years, but they aren't running those they do have at full capacity.

Quoting BlazingCessna (Reply 2):
Thank the EPA for closing all of them.

Wrong.

Quoting BlazingCessna (Reply 2):
Of cousre these are the same idiots that actually thing that a Peterbilt is gonna get 15mpg by 2010.

There is no reason they can't right now and there is further no reason the entire US trucking fleet can't be running on bio-diesel.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1835 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 15):
Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 1):
and still doesn't change the fact we need more refineries here in the States.

Not only have oil companies refused to build more refineries that have been permitted for years, but they aren't running those they do have at full capacity.

Ah yes, the voice of accuracy speaks again. Only thing is, the above isn't all that accurate. According to the International Herald Tribune (a NYT paper) here are the real facts about refinery production.

Quote:
Nationally, the number of refineries dropped from 324 in 1981 to its current level of 149 and refinery capacity is approximately 1.5 million barrels per day lower according to the Energy Department.

Current refinery production of 17.7 million barrels per day, however, is 3.7 million barrels per day higher than in 1981 as refineries are producing at 92 percent of their capacity compared to 69 percent in 1981. This comes largely thanks to expansions.

That's why building new refineries is not practical, industry executives said. So oil and gas companies prefer to boost supplies through expansion

So tell us, N1120A, how is running at 92% of capacity today compared to 69% in 1969 evidence of the evil oil companies manipulating prices?

And let's don't overlook the fact that current production is higher today than in 1981.

Isn't it more accurate to say that the oil companies are just trying to run their businesses more profitably and efficiently?

And why should they build new refineries when it is cheaper to expand existing ones?


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 978 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1820 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 13):
Why should an oil company expend resources to look for oil where it cannot be economically recovered?

This is a very good point, but using extreme measures for oil recovery is not sustainable. Oil prices are volatile, which can burn those who invest large sums of money to recover oil under the assumtion that market prices will remain high.

Let's say we drop to $30-40 a barrel in 2010-2015, right as production in this new field would likely go active. Is this oil field still desirable?

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 16):
Isn't it more accurate to say that the oil companies are just trying to run their businesses more profitably and efficiently?

Let's not be that naive...

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 16):
And why should they build new refineries when it is cheaper to expand existing ones?

I can think of a few:

1) All-new refineries can take advantage of more integrated efficiency-improving techniques that are difficult to retrofit

2) Our refineries are geographically concentrated to just a few areas. Katrina showed how one natural or man-made disaster could disable a huge portion of our oil supply. We need new refineries to solve this problem


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1811 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 17):
I can think of a few:

1) All-new refineries can take advantage of more integrated efficiency-improving techniques that are difficult to retrofit

2) Our refineries are geographically concentrated to just a few areas. Katrina showed how one natural or man-made disaster could disable a huge portion of our oil supply. We need new refineries to solve this problem

1) My father worked 37 years for a major oil company at one if its largest refineries. It was first built in the 1920's. When he retired in 1994, the existing facility was nothing like its original state. The water they discharged into the harbor was cleaner than the water they took in, and they sold excess electricity to the city produced from all of the latest co-generation technology installed at that location.

2) We have a large concentration of refineries in the gulf region because - surprise - that's where the oil is. Are you suggesting we should build new refineries where the oil isn't? How efficient is that?


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1810 times:

Quoting BlazingCessna (Reply 2):
Someone needs to snap those screwballs back to reality.

Perhaps not a good example, but saw a TV program were the E-85 Ethanol that is proposed to be used to fight pollution not only gives a car a lower gas mileage, but costs more. So where are the savings then?

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 6):
Lot's of stories on this in the media today. This doesn't include potential reserves off Florida and the West Coast. I remember reading that these could be potentially 80 billion bbl.

There is plenty of reserves in the US, some areas are not allowed to be drilled, however. Example: my uncle stepped into a big natural tarball at the beach in LA. But there are no offshore rigs close to LA at all.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 13):
Maybe it wasn't discovered before now because oil from the field at issue wasn't economically recoverable at 20 dollars a barrel.

This discovery is located in a deep area of the ocean, and there werent sufficient drilling ships available 20 years ago to locate them all.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 16):

And why should they build new refineries when it is cheaper to expand existing ones?

Redundancy. There is a concentration of refineries in the gulf area. This makes them susceptible to natural or artificial catastrophes. Plus transportation costs to transport the product to the farther away markets.


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1800 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 19):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 13):
Maybe it wasn't discovered before now because oil from the field at issue wasn't economically recoverable at 20 dollars a barrel.

This discovery is located in a deep area of the ocean, and there werent sufficient drilling ships available 20 years ago to locate them all.

Incorrect. The field has long been suspected of containing significant amounts of oil. the question - until now - has been, will the field produce oil at a flow rate sufficient to be economic. Part of that equation is the fact that this is oil located deep beneath the seabed where the seabed is some 7000 below the surface of the water, and will thus require an enormous investment to build and maintain the infrastructure necessary for recovery of the oil.

I sailed in the Gulf of Mexico 1975-79. there was no shortage of drill rigs and ships at that time.


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1799 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 20):

I sailed in the Gulf of Mexico 1975-79. there was no shortage of drill rigs and ships at that time.

As an aside to the oil in the gulf, are there natural occurring tar balls in Gulf of Mexico beaches as well?


User currently onlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20678 posts, RR: 62
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1793 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 19):
Example: my uncle stepped into a big natural tarball at the beach in LA. But there are no offshore rigs close to LA at all.

LA being Louisiana or Los Angeles? There are plenty of rigs in the gulf off of Louisiana, plus north of Los Angeles offshore of Santa Barbara.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1776 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 22):

LA being Louisiana or Los Angeles?

Los Angeles.


User currently onlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20678 posts, RR: 62
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1767 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 23):
Los Angeles.

While I'm not a geologist, upon further thinking, I don't believe it would be all that odd for a tarball to wash up on the beaches of L.A. There is this, afterall:

http://www.tarpits.org/



International Homo of Mystery
25 Go3Team : The EPA rules that took effect in Oct. of 2002, reduced the entire fuel economy of our fleet by almost 15%. The 10/02 engines get an average of about
26 MIAMIx707 : Not sure if it's related but oil prices have already come down a bit in the last few days. I was visiting a friend at Florida International Universit
27 DfwRevolution : And my father was an off-shore geophysicst with Arco, Sun, Oryx, Kerr-Mcghee, and now a senior VP of a firm he co-founded. If you want to be condesce
28 Post contains images Halls120 : Just pointing out that I do know a little bit about the subject. You want to call me a liar, be my guest. You implied it, despite your impassioned de
29 DfwRevolution : I didn't call you a liar, I called you condescending. If you want to criticize the merits of American education like you did to Starrion, you should
30 Post contains images Halls120 : LOL, you used condescending as a dodge, because you apparently don't have the guts to say what you really think. That's OK, I can indeed take the hea
31 Mham001 : IF thats the case, we just grab their share like they want to do to the other companies operating in Venezuela.
32 AndesSMF : The oil companies would. This is part of their infrastructure to sell their product. The key word that this industry needs in redundancy. There are m
33 L-188 : LA sits on top of one of the largest oil deposits in the United States, In fact prior to the 1940's and the development of fields in Texas LA was the
34 Post contains links DfwRevolution : I have no idea if you are lying, so why would I call you a liar? You are acting condescending, so I will call you condescening. I'll also point out t
35 Halls120 : I have no idea why you implied I was lying. I'm not a mind reader. How have I gone "apeshit?" No thanks. I'm not the kind of poster who runs for the
36 Post contains images Roadrunner165 : Bio-diesel isn't really all its cracked up to be. It will be quite a few years before bio-diesel has any large market share in the US. Correct! E-85
37 AndesSMF : Being in the construction industry, I would second the motion that rebuilding an old place IS inherently uneconomic and prone to cost overruns. I am
38 Halls120 : Sure it is. But many companies make that choice every day. There have to be advantages to upgrading existing facilities, otherwise, it would never ha
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
(UK) Big Brother Final, For All Us Sad People ;) posted Fri Aug 12 2005 22:51:42 by Pilot kaz
How The Heck There Enough Oil For Us On Earth? posted Fri Sep 10 2004 05:41:24 by Iowaman
No Trophy For US Soldiers, Pentagon Doesn't Care.. posted Wed Sep 6 2006 18:48:37 by TedTAce
Big Oil Cleared By FTC Of Price Fixing posted Tue May 23 2006 20:11:22 by MaverickM11
Global Banking Question For US Student In UK posted Thu May 11 2006 12:31:40 by SmithAir747
Question For US A.Netters Regarding The US Flag posted Sun Feb 19 2006 01:40:20 by TheSonntag
New Deadline For US Reporter Held Captive. posted Sat Feb 11 2006 03:54:07 by Airlinelover
Belarussian Transit Visa For US Citizen posted Thu Feb 9 2006 07:31:26 by TLG
Poll: Lube & Oil Change For Your Automobile posted Mon Nov 14 2005 03:01:11 by September11
One Term Limit For US Presidents? posted Sat Nov 5 2005 16:51:30 by TPASXM787